Oh, he would, wouldn’t he? The guy behind “Lost” has written an op-ed for The Hollywood Reporter supporting Veena Sud’s decision not to reveal Rosie Larsen’s killer at the end of the first season. But before you start trashing Lindelof, he’s going to head you off at the pass.

Even before you got to this sentence, you have already decided I’m a f–ing idiot. Because only a f–ing idiot would dare defend “The Killing.”

But defend it I shall. Sure, I understand why you’re angry — I was, too. But this is precisely what qualifies me to change your mind. And I know what you’re thinking. “Ooh. He’s self-servingly finding yet another reason to whine about Lost.” You are, of course, correct.

OK. So, we’ve established that Damon Lindelof is a self-serving, f–ing idiot. Should we even consider his defense? Let’s see what he has to say.

Were we misled? Yes. And yet, it turned out that misleads were sorta the point of the show.

In fact, the messaging behind “The Killing” continually reinforced that it was not going to be the cop formula we were familiar with, but something else entirely. There would be profound meditations on grief. Red herrings. Investigative dead ends. These are the things that drew us to it in the first place … so in some way, shouldn’t we have expected a lack of resolution? More importantly, it was either incredibly stupid or incredibly bold not to give us what we were demanding. I am inclined to believe it was the latter.

Incredibly bold is promising us ice cream and giving us Gelato. The season finale of “The Killing” was more like promising us ice cream and giving us a brain contusion. You’ve not convinced me yet, Lindelof. Please continue.

The minute we start vilifying writers for taking risks, we become complicit in an effort to make television boring. I am not interested in the dive where the guy just jumps off the board and flawlessly splishes into the water. I want to watch the one where there is a high probability he will belly flop so devastatingly that even the traditionally emotionless German judge cringes in empathy. And friends, I have had my fair share of belly flops.

Here’s my problem with that metaphor. I naturally appreciate it when writers take risks. The writers took a risk in formulating the show they did: Creating a season of television that centered on the investigation of one single murder. The problem is not entirely the way the season ended; it’s the way it hobbled to that finale. The show stopped being interesting by the 7th episode. By the 11th episode of the season, it was excruciating to watch. Those of us who kept watching did so for one reason only: To find out who the murderer was. If everything leading up to the botched season finale had been better, more compelling, more entertaining, I might have felt duped in a good way.

Let me put this in terms most of us understand: A sexual metaphor! If, say, Olivia Wilde had promised us a mad passionate night of love making and removed one item of clothing all the way up her stairwell but shut the door in our face at the top of the landing, telling us we’d have to wait until tomorrow before we closed the deal, we’d shake our fist and smile. “You minx!” But you know what? We’d sure as hell return the next night.

“The Killing” is more like the frumpy girl at the bar you pick up at last call. If she’d promised sex and then shut the door in our drunk face at the end of the night telling us we’d have to wait until the next night to close the deal, we’d curse her for making us walk 16 blocks in freezing rain for no goddamn reason, but we probably wouldn’t go back. We’d go to a different bar and find a better show.

That’s what most of us are doing with “The Killing.” “Game of Thrones” and “Mad Men” is like Alison Brie and Olivia Wilde in one night. Why would we also invite the frumpy girl to tease us after we’re already spent?

Elegantly put, Dustin. The only way you’d pay a visit to ol’ Frumpy is if by the end of day 2, you’ve got no better (or even equivalent) option. And with 100+ channels, plus DVR, DVD’s, Netflix, Vudu, and torrents, the odds of not having a better option are pretty damn slim.

The truth is, for a cop show (which, there is no other way to summarize The Killing, it’s a fucking cop show) one murder a season is a shitty way to run a railroad. When most murders in real life are either solved in 72 hours or never solved at all, it’s pretty ridiculous for them to take a season. (Its also ridiculous to only take an hour but that’s all beside the point).

A murder isn’t solved until the perp pleads guilty or the trial ends. I’d posit that almost no murders are solved in 72 hours. The first 48 hours or so after a murder are pretty critical for gathering evidence and whatnot, but getting to the point where you can make an arrest does not signal that the murder is solved.

The plot of The Killing is purposely complex and convoluted because, you know, it’s a fuckin’ TV show.

So, to Damon Lindelof, the Killing is about being misled. There is no way that when AMC considered adapting the Killing that THAT was the thing that intrigued them. “I love this show but I don’t like how competently this murder was investigated. I think it’d be better if we just deliberately tricked the audience a whole bunch of times and dragged this thing out for two or three seasons.” Actually, fuck it. He’s probably right. I’m sure that’s exactly the point of the show.

So, by that logic, does that mean they should never solve the murder? Every clue they find should be a red herring? Either that, or in, like, the fifth episode of season 2, we see some guy get shot while being mugged, and he’ll coincidentally turn out to be the guy that killed Rosie Larsen, and that’ll be the series finale.

I don’t necessarily detract from The Killing for its numerous red herrings or its inconclusive season finale, but it just felt so formulaic. One of the highlights of the show for me was that one episode later in the season where Linden’s son disappeared, and she and Holder spent the whole episode looking for him. If they intended to drag the investigation on for two seasons, I think they needed more variety, with more episodes like that one, where the main investigation made no progress (neither actual nor perceived progress).

I like Lindelof, and I still love Lost, and I might give The Killing another shot next season if I see some good reviews, but… hmm. Now that I look at them again, I guess none of those points he makes there are necessarily to the effect of saying that the show was well-executed; just that the basic premise and structure were different in a worthwhile way? I suppose I can’t argue with that. I just hope they do a better job with it all this year.